DOCSLIB.ORG

Beyond Distributions and Primary Goods: Assessing Applications of Rawls in Information Science and Technology Literature Since 1990

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Beyond Distributions and Primary Goods: Assessing Applications of Rawls in Information Science and Technology Literature Since 1990 ADVANCES IN INFORMATION SCIENCE Beyond Distributions and Primary Goods: Assessing Applications of Rawls in Information Science and Technology Literature since 1990 Anna Lauren Hoffmann School of Information, University of California, Berkeley, 102 South Hall, Berkeley, CA 94702. E-mail: [email protected] This article reviews the ways in which the work and of justice through which to assess various features of con- ideas of political philosopher John Rawls have been temporary social, political, and economic life. In particular, appropriated or applied by scholars of information sci- appealing to Rawls to address moral and political challenges ence, technology, and related areas since 1990. The arti- cle begins with an overview of Rawls’s work, paying of the development and use of advanced information and particular attention to its foundations and methods. communication technologies (ICTs) has scholarly prece- Subsequently, a 2-phase discussion of the literature is dent—notable efforts include Bell’s (1973) discussion of presented. The first phase reviews engagements with “post-industrial society,” Benkler’s (2006) liberal political Rawls from more than 150 scholarly articles from databases and journals dedicated to information and economic analyses of networked production, van Dijk’s technology ethics, information/technology studies, phi- (2005) account of the “digital divide,” and Sclove’s (1992) losophy of technology, and technology and human val- work on democracy and technological design. Rawls has ues. The second phase focuses on scholars who have also been employed extensively in conversations of moral- demonstrated a significant commitment to Rawlsian ity, ethics, and ICTs. This work represents an important con- theory in these areas. Overall, the review demonstrates that most significant applications of Rawls are oriented tribution to ethical analyses of ICTs by bringing together toward unequal distributions of informational goods and critically assessing the application of a particular—and exacerbated by advanced information and communica- particularly prominent—moral framework. tion technologies (ICTs). Critically, however, scholars in The article begins with an overview of Rawls’s theory of this area have overlooked the relevance of Rawls’s foun- dations for the sorts of complex networked relation- justice, paying particular attention to its foundational 1 ships afforded by those same advanced ICTs. Rather assumptions and methodological commitments. Next, a than representing a fatal gap, it opens up a new avenue two-phase discussion of the literature is presented. This first for the renewed consideration of Rawls—his ideas on phase attends to a wide range of engagements with Rawls the basic structure of society and the importance of based on more than 150 scholarly articles from databases self-respect are offered as 2 possible paths forward. and journals dedicated to considerations of information and technology ethics, information science, philosophy of infor- mation, philosophy of technology, technology and human Introduction values, and related areas. The second phase focuses on This article presents a comprehensive overview of how scholars whose bodies of work demonstrate a significant scholars of information and technology (broadly construed) 1Given that Rawls’s scholarship spans decades and thousands of have incorporated the ideas of political philosopher John pages, an exhaustive account of his work will not be possible here. In Rawls—among the most prominent political philosophers of the interest of efficiency, I have tried to focus on the most salient the 20th century. Rawls has long offered scholars from a aspects of his central theory—justice as fairness. Necessarily, certain range of disciplines a comprehensive and systematic vision tangential concepts and discussions are omitted. At the same time, how- ever, some citations of Rawls in the literature make reference to con- cepts omitted from this initial discussion. In order to keep the literature Received August 26, 2015; revised January 20, 2016; accepted March review as complete as possible, I have—where necessary—incorporated 27, 2016 brief discussions of concepts that may not have been adequately addressed earlier. For a more thorough accounting of many of these con- VC 2016 ASIS&T Published online 21 December 2016 in Wiley Online cepts, please see the comparable review that first appeared in Hoffmann Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/asi.23747 (2014) (doctoral dissertation). JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 68(7):1601–1618, 2017 commitment to the development of Rawlsian theory with (Rawls, 1980/1999a, p. 307). Put another way, moral con- regard to information and technology: Drahos (1996), van structivism adopts principles not because they are true, but den Hoven (1994, 1995, 1997), Brey (2000, 2007), Britz because they issue “from social procedures that are, in some (2004, 2008), and Duff (2006, 2011, 2012). Each author sense, suitable”—this is acceptable by all to whom they shares a set of core conceptions and commitments: They are apply (Darwall, Gibbard, & Railton, 1992, p. 139). The all committed to the idea that access to information should practical task before the constructivist, then, is to identify be a basic liberty; they each argue that information is vital to “what social procedures [are] suitable” (Darwall et al., p. the pursuit of individual and collective ends; and they focus 139). It is this task that Rawls sees before him in developing on the concept of information as a resource in the abstract, an account of justice. in particular by conceiving of information as a primary Rawls views the basic structure of contemporary liberal good. Combined with the most common uses of Rawls democratic societies as the primary problem for a theory of revealed by the broader review, these central concerns come justice (Rawls, 1971, p. 4). He gives two kinds of reasons for together to form what I will refer to as the “standard taking the basic structure as his primary subject. Under the account” of Rawls in informational and technological con- first kind of reason, he argues that principles of justice are texts. At the end of the article, I sketch the main ideas of the necessary for the regulation and preservation of just back- standard account and point toward some overlooked Rawl- ground conditions—what Rawls refers to as “background sian connections for future research and discussion. justice”—against which individuals set and pursue valued ends in line with their philosophical, moral, or religious John Rawls and Justice as Fairness beliefs, their sentiments and loyalties, as well as their funda- mental values and projects, among other things (what Rawls Committed to the idea that there can be a reasonable, pub- refers to as a person’s comprehensive doctrine). Under the lic basis for argument on moral issues, Rawls’s work sets out second kind of reason, Rawls (2001) centers on the basic to develop a basis for reasoning about justice in contemporary 2 structure for its “profound and pervasive” influence on the liberal democratic societies. Initially, Rawls had hoped that life chances of citizens, given that it is integral to the structur- such a procedure might be useful for constructing a wide ing of individuals’ political, social, and economic possibilities range of ethical principles, but as his career progressed he (p. 55–56). Within the basic structure, Rawls intends his prin- refined and restricted the scope of its applicability, eventually ciples of justice as applying to the “basic institutions,” includ- limiting it to the construction of principles of justice (see, gen- ing a constitution and the system of government it defines, erally: O’Neill, 2003; Rawls, 1980/1999a, 1993). Perhaps his systems of property for regulating the use of goods, and eco- most notable achievement was the development of the nomic markets for distributing productive resources. “original position”—a constructive procedure for modeling Guided by his constructivist method, Rawls puts forward rational decision making under conditions that are fair (hence the “original position” as a suitable procedure for arriving at thenameofhistheory,justice as fairness). It is through this principles of justice suitable for regulating the basic struc- procedure that Rawls was able to revive and further the idea ture of society. Importantly, however, a great deal of the of a social contract as found in the work of Hobbes, Locke, “heavy lifting” of Rawls’s theory is done well before Rawls and—in different ways—Kant and Rousseau (Rawls, 1971, p. arrives at the original position. The device does not carry xviii). In addition, his work differs in important ways from justificatory force in and of itself, but instead works to oper- other strands of liberalism, especially classical economic lib- ationalize relevant features—referred to as “model- eralism and so-called neoliberalism, given that he does not conceptions”—of persons and society that he lays out in view liberalism as a fundamentally or narrowly economic advance.3 The first relevant model-conception is that of the doctrine tied to the rise of capitalism and market economic “well-ordered society”—that is, a society (i) in which every- thought. Rather, Rawls is situated in a liberal tradition that (i) one accepts (and knows others also accept) the same princi- is fundamentally concerned with ideals of toleration and the ples of justice and (ii) its basic structure is
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Intercollegiate Political Philosophy Lectures
    This handout can be downloaded at www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctyvmd/Handout.pdf Intercollegiate Political Philosophy Lectures Looking Again at Rawls’s Theory of Justice Room 421, Birkbeck Main Building Thursdays 11-12, Weeks 1-5, Autumn Term 2004-2005 Véronique Munoz-Dardé Department of Philosophy, UCL E-mail: [email protected] Office Hours: Mondays 11-12 These lectures will be devoted to Justice as Fairness, Rawls’s conception of justice, as developed in the revised edition of A Theory of Justice (1999, hereafter, in all handouts, TJ) and Justice as Fairness a Restatement (2001, hereafter JFR). The purpose of these lectures is to come to an understanding of the fundamental ideas of Rawls’s approach, and how they fit together: the Original Position, Reflective Equilibrium, the Basic Structure, the Difference Principle, Reasonable Overlapping Consensus, the difference between Political Liberalism and Comprehensive Liberalism, etc… We will do this by going back and forth between TJ and the mature statement of the theory in JFR. In Rawls’s own words in the preface of JFR: In this work I have two aims. One is to rectify the more serious faults in A Theory of Justice that have obscured the main ideas of justice as fairness, as I called the conception of justice presented in that book. Since I still have confidence in those ideas and think the more important difficulties can be met, I have undertaken this reformulation. […] The other aim is to connect into one unified statement the conception of justice presented in Theory and the main ideas in my essays beginning with 1974.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice As Fairness, Utilitarianism, and Mixed Conceptions
    1 Justice as fairness, utilitarianism, and mixed conceptions David O. Brink It would be hard to overstate the philosophical significance of John Rawls’s TJ.1 It articulates and defends an egalitarian conception of liberalism and distributive justice that consists of two principles of justice: a principle of equal basic liberties and a principle that distributes social and economic goods and opportunities so as to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. Rawls defends this liberal egalitarian conception of justice primarily as an alternative to utilitarianism.2 He situates his defense of this liberal egalitarian conception of justice within the social contract tradition by arguing that his principles of distributive justice would be preferred to utilitarianism and other Thanks to David Estlund, Tim Hinton, Theron Pummer, and Paul Weithman for comments on an earlier draft. I learned much of what I know about the appeal and resources of justice as fairness while I was at MIT in the late 1980s and early 1990s, especially from interactions with John Rawls, Tim Scanlon, Derek Parfit, and my (then) colleague Joshua Cohen. This essay develops ideas in lectures that I gave on justice as fairness during that period, which Tim Hinton attended and discussed with me. 1 Unless otherwise noted, all references to Rawls will be to TJ. The second edition (TJR) was published in 1999. Because the section numbering is the same in the two editions, I will refer to TJ using section numbers as much as possible. Rawls offers a restatement and reinterpret- ation of justice as fairness in JFR.
    [Show full text]
  • The Idea of Public Reason Resuscitated
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 10 (2001-2002) Issue 3 Article 5 April 2002 The Idea of Public Reason Resuscitated James P. Madigan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the First Amendment Commons Repository Citation James P. Madigan, The Idea of Public Reason Resuscitated, 10 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 719 (2002), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol10/iss3/5 Copyright c 2002 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj THE IDEA OF PUBLIC REASON RESUSCITATED James P. Madigan In this Article, James Madigan examines the role ofpublic reason in a democratic government, including what views shouldplay a role in determining public reason. Madigan criticizesJohn Rawls for including comprehensive views in constitutionaldebates, and argues that only reasonsgrounded in politicalvalues should be used when debatingconstitutional issues and fundamental rights. I standfor the separation of church and state, and the reason that I standfor that is the same reason that I believe ourforefathers did. It is not there to protect religionfrom the grasp of government, but to protect our governmentfrom the grasp of religiousfanaticism. I may be an atheist, but that does not mean I do not go to church. I do go to church. The church Igo to is the one that emancipated the slaves. It gave women the right to vote. It gave us every freedom that we hold dear. My church is this very chapel of democracy that we sit in together, and I do not need God to tell me what are my moral absolutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Considerations of Social Justice: Primary Goods & Functional
    Considerations of Social Justice: Primary Goods & Functional Capabilities Considerations of social justice within liberal frameworks are often bound up with the notion of equality of opportunity. Equality of opportunity within liberal theory is generally discussed as requiring the determination of principles, or procedures to be used in distributing general “means-goods” such as income and wealth in the society. These may be called “means-goods” because they have no intrinsic value. They are means to realising various ends, and they are “general” insofar as they can be used to realise a wide range of possible ends. John Rawls exemplified this by treating the question of distributive justice principally in terms of the distribution of “primary social goods” such as income and wealth. This understanding of the problem of social justice is theoretically adequate, but too narrow in practice. In theory, Rawls posited that citizens would have developed moral powers (a sense of justice and a capacity to form conception of the good), would view each other as similarly free and equal, and be normal co-operating members of society. In practice, these assumptions regarding citizen capacities are too strong; and have the effect of conflating poverty with disadvantage. Building on the work of Amartya Sen and Martha Nussbaum, I argue that prior to, and in addition to questions of general means-goods, the problem of social justice requires attention to the development and maintenance of basic human functional capabilities. The reason for this is that “primary social goods” define a person’s advantage in terms of being “well-off”, rather in terms of “well-being”.
    [Show full text]
  • Rawls and Capabilities: the Current Debate CLAUDIO D’AMATO, VIRGINIA TECH (2014)
    Rawls and capabilities: the current debate CLAUDIO D’AMATO, VIRGINIA TECH (2014) The capability approach to justice was con- answer different questions in substantially differ- ceived as an alternative to the Rawlsian scholar- ent realms of inquiry and applicability. ship that became dominant in moral and political philosophy at the end of the XX century. Among I. Justice as fairness other issues, capability theorists have objected to Rawls’s identification of the currency of distribu- Rawls argues that the object of distributive jus- tive justice with primary goods and to the claim tice is the basic structure of society (1999a: 3); i.e., that the appropriate subject of distributive justice the political institutions that regulate the interac- is the basic structure of society. As Ingrid Robeyns tions of free and equal citizens in a democratic (2011) puts it, capability theorists argue that capa- “cooperative venture for mutual advantage” bility as a “metric of justice” does a better job than (1999a: 4). The subjects of distributive justice are Rawlsian primary goods at capturing what human the citizens themselves, whose representatives, beings seek in a social distributive scheme. How- while in an original position of initial fairness, ever, the relation between the two sides of the de- concur on a political conception of justice that all bate is not one of stark opposition, but rather one can endorse. Even if they privately endorse widely of productive exchange: all work within the liberal different comprehensive doctrines—religious, political tradition, and in the last few years there philosophical, traditional, historical, and moral— has been considerable mutual understanding, co- each doctrine, if it be reasonable, yet comprises operation, and a certain softening of the two sides’ the theoretical elements to support a public and original positions—pun intended.
    [Show full text]
  • Martha Nussbaum's Outcome-Oriented Theory of Justice
    Martha Nussbaum’s outcome-oriented theory of justice Philosophical comments Cathrine Holst Working Paper No. 16, December 2010 ARENA Working Paper (print) | ISSN 1890-7733 ARENA Working Paper (online) | ISSN 1890- 7741 Working papers can be downloaded from the ARENA homepage: http://www.arena.uio.no Abstract The capability approach developed by Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen has received substantial attention in recent years, in philosophical exchanges as well as in more applied discussions on policy-making, in particular in developing countries, but lately also in Western countries, including Europe and the EU. This paper contributes to the philosophical exchanges of Nussbaum’s version of the capability approach. Nussbaum herself presents her contribution as an alternative to John Rawls’ theory of justice, and following her lead, this paper compares Nussbaum and Rawls. The first part presents Nussbaum’s position and how it differs from Rawls’; the second and third parts develop arguments against substituting primary goods and a procedural justification of justice (Rawls) with capabilities and an ethical justification of justice (Nussbaum); the fourth part highlights some problems with Nussbaum’s conception of justice compared to Rawls’. The fifth and final part discusses how the critical points of the first four parts relate to European studies discussions on legitimacy in general and to RECON’s normative framework in particular. The merits of Nussbaum’s approach from a gender perspective are given particular attention. Keywords Democracy — Gender Policy — Justice — Legitimacy — Philosophy Reproduction of this text is subject to permission by the authors © ARENA 2010 Martha Nussbaum’s outcome-oriented theory of justice The capability approach developed by Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen has received substantial attention in recent years, both in philosophical exchanges and in more applied discussions on policy- making, in particular in developing countries, but lately also in Western countries (see for example Robeyns 2003, Alkire et al.
    [Show full text]
  • THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY of AMERICA John Rawls, Political
    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA John Rawls, Political Justice, and the Problem of Universality and Particularity A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the Department of Politics School of Arts and Sciences Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy © Copyright All Rights Reserved By Brett Larson Washington, D.C. 2015 John Rawls, Political Justice, and the Problem of Universality and Particularity Brett Larson, Ph.D. Director: Claes G. Ryn, Ph.D. Abstract John Rawls is widely regarded by both critics and defenders as the most important political philosopher of the latter half of the twentieth century. Philosophers since at least the time of Plato and Aristotle have wrestled with the problem of the relationship between the universal and the particular. Astonishingly, no scholar has seriously investigated either Rawls’s understanding of the relationship between universality and particularity or how his view of this connection affects his justification for liberal democracy. This dissertation fills this glaring void. It attempts to answer two primary research questions. The first concerns what Rawls’s political philosophy implies about the relationship between universality and particularity, and the second pertains to how this implicit view influences his defense of liberal democracy. This dissertation applies a traditional hermeneutical method of textual analysis to all of the writings of Rawls that are relevant to answering these two questions. Throughout his voluminous works, Rawls attempts to insulate his conception of justice from the influence of historical circumstances. Rawls admits that the three fundamental ideas of justice as fairness—the conception of the person, the idea of a well-ordered society, and the idea of society as a fair system of cooperation—are ideals that do not exist in historical political orders.
    [Show full text]
  • Rawlsian Self-Respect and Limiting Liberties in the Background Culture
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Masters Theses Graduate School 5-2016 Rawlsian Self-Respect and Limiting Liberties in the Background Culture Kyle William Chapel University of Tennessee - Knoxville, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Chapel, Kyle William, "Rawlsian Self-Respect and Limiting Liberties in the Background Culture. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2016. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/3757 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a thesis written by Kyle William Chapel entitled "Rawlsian Self-Respect and Limiting Liberties in the Background Culture." I have examined the final electronic copy of this thesis for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts, with a major in Philosophy. Adam Cureton, Major Professor We have read this thesis and recommend its acceptance: John Nolt, Markus Kohl, Jon Garthoff Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Rawlsian Self-Respect and Limiting Liberties in the Background Culture A Thesis Presented for the Master of Arts Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Kyle William Chapel May 2016 ii Copyright © 2016 by Kyle Chapel All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS by John Rawls (1971)
    JUSTICE AS FAIRNESS By John Rawls (1971) The Main Idea of The Theory of Justice My aim is to present a conception of justice which generalizes and carries to a higher level of abstraction the familiar theory of the social contract as found, say, in Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. In order to do this we are not to think of the original contract as one to enter a particular society or to set up a particular form of government. Rather, the guiding idea is that the principles of justice for the basic structure of society are the object of the original agreement. They are the principles that free and rational persons concerned to further their own interests would accept in an initial position of equality as defining the fundamental terms of their association. These principles are to regulate all further agreements; they specify the kinds of social cooperation that can be entered into and the forms of government that can be established. This way of regarding the principles of justice I shall call justice as fairness. Thus we are to imagine that those who engage in social cooperation choose together, in one joint act, the principles which are to assign basic rights and duties and to determine the division of social benefits. Men are to decide in advance how they are to regulate their claims against one another and what is to be the foundation charter of their society. Just as each person must decide by rational reflection what constitutes his good, that is, the system of ends which it is rational for him to pursue, so a group of persons must decide once and for all what is to count among them as just and unjust.
    [Show full text]
  • Rawls and Health Care
    Colby College Digital Commons @ Colby Honors Theses Student Research 2007 Rawls and Health Care Elizabeth H. Coogan Colby College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/honorstheses Part of the Ethics and Political Philosophy Commons, and the Health and Medical Administration Commons Colby College theses are protected by copyright. They may be viewed or downloaded from this site for the purposes of research and scholarship. Reproduction or distribution for commercial purposes is prohibited without written permission of the author. Recommended Citation Coogan, Elizabeth H., "Rawls and Health Care" (2007). Honors Theses. Paper 501. https://digitalcommons.colby.edu/honorstheses/501 This Honors Thesis (Open Access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at Digital Commons @ Colby. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Colby. RAWLS AND HEALTH CARE Liz Coogan Philosophy Department Colby College May 2007 This thesis is presented in partial completion of the the Honors Program in Philosophy. Advisor ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project could not have been completed without the help of many people. First, I would like recognize my advisor, Cheshire Calhoun, for her invaluable guidance. From beginning to end I benefited both from her insights on the philosophical problems I considered and from her familiarity with and sage advice about the difficulties that any independent writing project inevitably involves. I would also like to thank the members of the Colby College Philosophy Department who, over the last four years, taught me the skills which I used throughout the year while writing this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • Equality of What?
    Equality of What? AMARTYA SEN THE TANNER LECTURE ON HUMAN VALUES Delivered at Stanford University May 22, 1979 AMARTYA SEN is Drummond Professor of Political Econ- omy at Oxford University. He is also Fellow of All Souls College, and Andrew D. White Professor at Large at Cornell University. Professor Sen was born in India and studied at Calcutta and at Cambridge. He has taught at Calcutta, Cambridge, Delhi, and London, and also at Berkeley, Harvard, M.I.T., and Stanford. His books in- clude Choice of Techniques, Collective Choice and Social Welfare, On Economic Inequality, and Employment, Technology and Development. His Poverty and Famines is in press, while another book, Welfare and Rights, is nearing completion. He has published articles in eco- nomics, philosophy, political science, decision theory, and history. Discussions in moral philosophy have offered us a wide menu in answer to the question: equality of what? In this lecture I shall concentrate on three particular types of equality, viz., (i) utili- tarian equality, (ii) total utility equality, and (iii) Rawlsian equality. I shall argue that all three have serious limitations, and that while they fail in rather different and contrasting ways, an adequate theory cannot be constructed even on the combined grounds of the three. Towards the end I shall try to present an alternative formulation of equality which seems to me to deserve a good deal more attention than it has received, and I shall not desist from doing some propaganda on its behalf. First a methodological question. When it is claimed that a certain moral principle has shortcomings, what can be the basis of such an allegation? There seem to be at least two different ways of grounding such a criticism, aside from just checking its direct appeal to moral intuition.
    [Show full text]
  • Primary Goods Revisited: the "Political Problem" and Its Rawlsian Solution Robert C
    Cornell Law Library Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Cornell Law Faculty Publications 9-17-2006 Primary Goods Revisited: The "Political Problem" and Its Rawlsian Solution Robert C. Hockett Cornell Law School, [email protected] Mathias Risse Harvard University - John F. Kennedy School of Government, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/lsrp_papers Recommended Citation Hockett, Robert C. and Risse, Mathias, "Primary Goods Revisited: The "Political Problem" and Its Rawlsian Solution" (2006). Cornell Law Faculty Publications. Paper 55. http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/lsrp_papers/55 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CORNELL LAW SCHOOL LEGAL STUDIES RESEARCH PAPER SERIES Primary Goods Revisited: The "Political Problem" and Its Rawlsian Solution Robert Hockett and Mathias Risse Cornell Law School Myron Taylor Hall Ithaca, NY 14853-4901 Cornell Law School research paper No. 06-030 This paper can be downloaded without charge from: The Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection: http://ssrn.com/abstract=931048 Primary Goods Revisited: the “Political Problem” and Its Rawlsian Solution Robert Hockett, Yale Law School Mathias Risse, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University December 15, 2003 1. Introduction 1.1 Relations between the “subjective” and “objective” aspects of the proper currency of justice remain unsettled.1 On the one hand, objections featuring the “tame housewife,” cheerful crippled “Tiny Tim,” the “expensive tastes”-cultivating “Louis,” or the Scanlonian ascetic have underscored the insufficiency of subjective welfare to accommodate concerns about preferences that either are formed under conditions of injustice or are themselves in some sense unjust (cf.
    [Show full text]